Embed Notice

For Americans needing a history lesson in light of the Orange one’s comments on world wars, specifically the second (important to note, this is not to minimise the US’s contribution and loss, just to ground it in reality)

The allies would have won the Second World War without US participation. It would have been bloodier, and longer, but won nonetheless. This isn’t really up for debate, and has been explored extensively in academia.

See, by the time the US had entered the war, Germany was already on the back foot in the east, forced on a rearguard out of its newly claimed territories by Russia which lasted for nearly two years. Germany was running out of resources fast, and people were beginning to starve at home.

The British had all but defeated Italy, and a strong resistance movement sealed the deal. They’d successfully regained (as if they really lost it) naval supremacy, even with the u-boat threat, essentially blockading Germany from the Atlantic and sinking u-boats at an alarming rate by 1943.

This would have likely meant the land invasion of Europe would have been through Italy, which initially was the plan. It would have been bloodier, as Hitler was expecting this, but arguably shorter as it stretched Germany’s resources thinner still, all to the periphery of controlled territory, making supply line attacks even more devastating.

The US would likely have still been at war with Japan (but even this is in doubt due to resources, and if US involvement didn’t feel inevitable at the time) but Japan was already being pushed back by Chinese, British, Dutch, and by Indian forces, who all supported China’s pushback.

BUT, but, but, lend-lease I hear you ask…

1/2